Politically correct, but so poor

We have turned the expression politically correct into a trap.

Oliver Thansan
Oliver Thansan
16 March 2023 Thursday 16:36
15 Reads
Politically correct, but so poor

We have turned the expression politically correct into a trap. In the name of what should be politically correct, we have reinvented censorship. These are curious human paradoxes: we have the ability to transform an a priori positive concept (not wanting to offend others, being respectful of differences, attending to people's various sensibilities) into something harmful. We become sick, aggressive observers, not at all attentive to the freedom of expression of others.

The limits are very fine, like a thin rope that separates tolerance from intolerance, wanting to avoid injuries while cutting heads left and right.

Let me explain: the news of the revision/redrafting of Roald Dahl's work was just the tip of the iceberg. After the controversy that arose from rewriting his work eliminating the adjectives ugly, fat, or making bald witches disappear, for example, the following reflections occur to me:

What will we do now with the characters of the ancient Greek tragedies? Euripides' Medea explains the rage felt by her protagonist when Jason, the husband for whom she has betrayed her homeland, leaves her to marry another woman. Medea, a sorceress who controls nature, wise and abandoned, intelligent and cruel in a foreign land, kills her own children as revenge. She opposes the mother's instinct to the will to take revenge on her. She wins revenge, in a splendid work... that perhaps some would like to destroy.

And what would happen to Seneca's Phaedra, where the protagonist goes mad with desire for Hippolytus, her stepson? And with Sophocles' Oedipus the King, who masterfully draws human behavior when he kills his father and has sexual relations with his mother?

Perhaps to be politically correct, we should also review Shakespeare's work. Let's make new editions, then, where the delicious character of Ofelia, committed suicide in a river, does not appear. It is not that we encourage the suicide of adolescent girls, a worrying situation in our world that, I assure you, has nothing to do with literary characters.

Put to do, we could suppress the same protagonist: Hamlet, not very correct from a current look. And, please, let's change the ending of Romeo and Juliet, so that those who defend that healthy relationships do not generate dependencies cannot be scandalized. We should also review King Lear, because he ends up in a butcher shop as a result of filial ingratitude, where evil is the absolute victor, as is often the case in life.

Oh, and following the criteria of correction, it would be convenient to carry out a complete rewrite of Don Quixote. How dared Cervantes speak of a beautiful and perfumed Dulcinea del Toboso, who was the idealization of a woman named Aldonza, whom he describes as short, ugly, smelly, and Moorish?

Please, let's stop being ridiculous. Let us respect literature and all those works that, written in a specific time and circumstances, have built the collective imagination of our civilization. They have served to know human nature. They have raised questions and provided answers. Let's not be so elementary as to try to review everything from a current, dwarfed and sectarian perspective, because we will only be able to impoverish ourselves culturally and humanly. And we are already poor enough.